Empyrean wrote:

Frustration like this has been popping up here and there on the forums, and I really think it mostly comes from not understanding that CoT is at a point in the development process where most studios would have at most released a name, and MAYBE and a logo and an approximate release date. Probably not even that. Just as one example, the "Titan" mmo that Blizzard--Blizzard, mind you--probably started developing around 2007 (no one is even sure) was virtually only a rumor till it was officially cancelled this year. And they had developed enough that they took what they had and made a MOBA out of it.
MWM didn't have that option because they had to Kickstart for the money very early on--but that doesn't mean that they're any further along than any other studio would be this early. Which means, if they're doing their job right and doing first-things-first, there isn't much to show right now that anyone would want to look at. And that not much is set in stone. Yet they're sharing what they can, and if it's not enough to satisfy, what should they do? Stop actually developing the game properly and focus on making us eye candy? Or set things in stone to tell us about now when it's too early for that to be a good idea to do? I guess they could just make stuff up.
I fully understand--feel--the eagerness and frustration, but while those emotions are strong, we have to be rational too. We were let in VERY early in the process, so we have some waiting to do. That's just how it is.

or stop make mmo and make CoT out MOBA

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

My only frame of reference is City of Heroes
It's clear that there will be some similarities but it's not clear just how much.

Seems to me that this is a whole lot of idea of what to expect. Furthermore, I've yet to feel that my suggestions or feedback were irrelevant or useless.

Also, what Empyrean said.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Darth Fez wrote:
< I've yet to feel that my suggestions or feedback were irrelevant or useless.

I have been made to feel that way.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Really.

Understand that we have quite a lot of idea discussion under our belt, directions we've decided upon, and systems to design within the engine.

I don't make decisions on what info to give out when. but there is method to that madness even if it is maddening ;)

We can't comment on every idea (there's no way to keep up!), but that doesn't mean we aren't paying attention. I personally have copied, logged, and tracked plenty of threads both with and without commenting on every nuiance of an idea or concept.

Sometimes an idea may sound good on the surface, but in considering what is behind the curtain, it won't mesh, but because we can't reveal yet what's behind the curtain, we can't outright say "no way". Sometimes an idea is good, but what's behind the curtain is at barebones and there's no way of knowing if it will mesh well, but we can keep it in mind.

Sometimes an idea lines up with something we've already decided upon but we aren't prepared to reveal it.

Sometimes an idea is really good and we like it, but can't guarantee its implementation at this time in development. Yet even commenting on such can result in setting up false expectations.

And yes, sometims an idea may sound good on the surface, but once the layers are peeled back, it really isn't. It happens. Ive been there myself, even as a "dev" when discussing concepts with other devs. I take this not as a slight, but as an opportunity to learn and move on.

Keep posting, please bear with us as we trickle out details on the game. Right now things move slowly on the surface, but that's because there's a lot going on fathoms down and it won't bubble up right away.

Consultant wrote:

... But what I would like to hear from the devs is more philosophical. For example, do the devs think that they would like to see a player take about the same amount of playing time to elevate a character from level 1 to level 30 as was required in COH? More? Less? Leaving aside exploits and other craziness, if we are just playing the game, and having fun, will the pacing be about the same, as it is currently envisioned?

Old post [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/68794#comment-68794]here[/url].

but i still think the level up easing should be closer to:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/Nr1hgwH.png[/img]
;)

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Consultant wrote:
It is really very early in development.

I keep getting conflicting comments on this point.
There's a thread on the forum reminding us that we're halfway to the set release date ant that we need to start scaling back our expectations. but on a number of threads we're told it's too early in development to be sure about anything.
I understand growing pains. I'm too big for Teletubbies but not old enough for spring break (I'm actually old) but dang it I just want to know where we ARE and have some idea where we're going, so I have some Idea what to look forward to and what it's still reasonable to hope for, or suggest.
Also I'd like to have more of an idea what the game you're working toward is so I can tell if it's even worth my time contributing. All I really know is that it's based on City of Heroes and honestly that gets me interested but it could also be bad. There were things in that game that I didn't like. What if the developers have decided that the best thing in COH was Taskforces and PVP. If that's what they want to emphasize them I'm out.

It is still early in development. But once certain snow balls get rolling down the moutainside, they'll become boulders. In other words, once certain systems are in place and working as required, development will move along quickly.

And we won't be focusing on pvp and task forces. Though we hope to make PvP better than it was in CoH.
One of the things we've done extensively is noted the problems we, as players, perceived within CoX, and then tracked multiple threads over the past couple of years from multiple sites and noted when our experiencs matched up, and when other common issues came up that we either missed or didn't fully annotate. Then we asked ourselves - how do we go about avoiding this pitfall or address this problem?

We did the same for all those things that worked well. Then we asked ourselves "is there any way we can improve upon this?"

Much of the emphasis we place is on the player's experience. We've taken the idea of how players can create diverse character appearance in the costume creator and add this functionality to powers - power customization becomes like the costume creator in of itself essentially. Expand this further into game play where player's actions determines their characer alignment, determines their reputation with certain factions, in who or what might be considered a "contact" for a mission and altogether each run through as a character can be a slightly different experience even if there is a repeated mission - the context may have changed for why the character is there compared to the first. Your character's story through the game becomes more customizable by the player's decisions for their character - much like creating the costume and powers was customizable.

We aim to support multiple types of play. Where a player can solo through the game, or teams made up of any combination of classification can complete content. Some Specs may solo better than others, and some team combos may be more efficient than others, but we want to make it possible. A world where PvP occurs, and at the same time is completely avoidable (not seen or heard) if that's desired. Where there are, on occaision larger, more difficult stories to traverse (like task forces), local district and even larger open world events, and raid style events (eventually). And even if we get to the raid style content, they aren't intended to be a requirement for progress where players are funnelled through, but provide an alternative experience of play for instanced-combtinations of multi-teams.

And yes, we realize that's a lot to pull off. Which is why we are starting off small and everything we make has to be modular so we can build upon it without having to rebuild if we can avoid it.

There are a lot of people that are very excited for this. As such, there are a lot of "ideas" that people want to try to throw around and get implemented into the game. I have tried to be a voice that is more pragmatic and pushes for just a simple, basic start to the game. I am not against a lot of bells and whistles being implemented in the game, I just want it to start out basic and simple so it can then be built upon. This way we at least have SOMETHING. I worry sometimes, and it may all just be in my head, that too many "ideas" being thrown around are distracting the developers, or at least making them occasionally backtrack on some of the things they are working on to try to fit some of these "ideas" in for launch. To me, and again I may be wrong, I would think people would wait for the game to come out first before suggesting things on how to improve it. Right now, we have no idea what the game is going to look like and how it will play. I feel we should all just wait patiently for the game to enter the Beta stage where people can jump in, give it a try, figure out the kinks, and then suggest what to do to improve the game. Maybe I'm just a rare breed though. (shrugs)

Consultant wrote:

Izzy, I like your curve and agree with it.
But that curve could true for 100 hours of game play to reach level 30 or for 1,000 hours.
My question was simple; are we staying with a leveling period pretty similar to COH, or are we going longer or shorter? Frankly I'm going to play COT no matter what the answer, but i am curious. And as a matter of philosophical intent, not proven mathematics, I thought the Devs could answer. :)
I haven't even asked my question about Patrol Experience yet...are we getting something like that again (I loved it)?

Well I just got a pretty interesting answer about something else here: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/framework-non-combat-talents

But from how Tannim explained some of the extra methods of progress (all subject to change, of course), we can look forward to some variety to the mission formula, at least a little (understatement). But if the supplementary combat powers described allows you to gain progress through mission rewards and bonuses through their achievement system and other systems that have yet to be described!

I'd assume that, whatever CoT exp curve is going to be like, it's probably going to take longer than CoX but the good thing is there will be variety in missions! I'd also assume there are going to be extra methods of gaining exp along with the basic mission rewards.

All right, with Valiance Online in pre-Alpha (and I've been on and it's unexpectedly like COH and fun -- that said, I think COT will be more creative and wonderful and individual), I came by to check on progress.

I've read several threads, however, I don't have any kind of notion where we stand, and I don't see any hard and fast/quick and dirty/any KIND of dates. I understand about volunteers, I understand about being in at the beginning, I understand about odd problems coming up at odd times . . . but still I'd like even a pie in the sky type date, particularly for the Character Creator which, I believe at the time of the Kickstarter, was going to be a separate program bit released much earlier than the game. As I recall, they'd thought it would be out a year from the Kickstarter. Even a general "quarterly" type date would be good: something like "don't think of Winter Solstice but Spring Equinox or Summer Solstice might be doable."

Are we looking at 3 months for the first bit or 6 months, or is the Character Creator so integral to the game that it can't be broken out?

Thank you all for what you are doing, I like the lore updates, but I feel blind about when I should expect anything else (not to mention trying to figure out a budget that I can insert COT into).

[CENTER][URL=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]

Tannim, you guys just stay steady.

It's clear that MWM is building the future of the genre. The Next Gen successor.

We'll be there once you've built it.

As for VO being ahead, it would be a very surprising thing if they did not launch first. They are way ahead of the curve build wise and had a cohesive company from the get go. In a way it is very brave of them to be in that first out of the gate position. Everyone wants a great game that is in some way comparable to their experience in CoX. That experience is both daunting and what drives all of our (we being MWM, VO, APR and H&V) decisions as well as the entire philosophy of our games. We have all aimed high at a very high mark. It may take every successor longer than we really want it to, but we are all committed to the end games being something exciting and worthy of the community that gave them reason to exist.